Sunday, December 18, 2005

via E&P, NYT Exec Ed Bill Keller, still smarting from the Miller snafu, tries to tapdance his way past the graveyard on the spying coverup:

"A year ago, when this information first became known to Times reporters, the administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security. Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions. As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time.

"We also continued reporting, and in the ensuing months two things happened that changed our thinking.

"First, we developed a fuller picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program. It is not our place to pass judgment on the legal or civil liberties questions involved in such a program, but it became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood.

"Second, in the course of subsequent reporting we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program -- withholding a number of technical details -- in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."

What a containerload of crap. The very people violating the law assure you that everything is jake, and that's good enough for you. Some of them were a little squeamish about what they were doing, and that made you feel sorry for them, or something. And it took you a year to work up the gumption to take on this constitutional crisis.

You can buffalo and shim sham 'till the cows come home, but you still haven't answered the goddamned question: What did the Times know and when did it know it?

Until and unless you convince me otherwise, I am working from the assumption that you threw the 2004 election.

2 Comments:

pablo verde said...

one question from the heartland: was the times as careful about reporting the swiftboat crapola as they were about this impeachable offense? they dishonor the history of that newspaper and should be forced to change the name to the new york rimjob.